D&D 4E WotC this is something you absolutely cannot screw up in 5E like you screwed up in 4E

[Hassassin]

But most setting don't take place in post-19th century Earth.

So we shouldn't use English?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Well, the scientific community is not agreed that Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are separate genii.

How does the scientific community determine a dinosaur is a genius, either together or separately? Perhaps you meant genera?

(Another message brought to you by your local Pedant's Council.)

I am one for keeping the real-world names out of the game. Some of the game names could be better, but not every name is a winner.

 

[Wormwood]

So we shouldn't use English?

What the heck is English?

/Common

 

[Banshee16]

Chalk this up in the "Not anywhere near as big a deal as people make it out to be" column.

I diasagree. The names were silly. The only ones I lined were a few from Eberron.

It made it feel like they were scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Banshee

 

[Jawsh]

So we shouldn't use English?

WotC's latest dinosaur names are more like English-ish.

 

[Greg K]

I think it far more likely that something else turned them off from the game, and creatures like the Macetail Behemoth don't really matter in the long run.

It was one of several things for me (along with 4e creature naming in general).

 

[Jawsh]

It was one of several things for me (along with 4e creature naming in general).

I'd agree with that. 4E had some serious creature bloat. I once went looking for kobolds and came back with about 10 different xyz kobolds, and no generic kobold. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the variety, I just like how in 3E you could go to K in the Monster Manual and find the basic stats for a kobold.

 

[Hussar]

I'd agree with that. 4E had some serious creature bloat. I once went looking for kobolds and came back with about 10 different xyz kobolds, and no generic kobold. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the variety, I just like how in 3E you could go to K in the Monster Manual and find the basic stats for a kobold.

That's a bit of a misunderstanding of the system though Jawsh. There is no such thing as a basic kobold in 4e. It just doesn't exist. Pretty much all the humanoids are built that way, and even most of the monsters have a few versions, none of which are actually a "base" version.

It's a heavy nod back to older versions of D&D where you had 14 different "humans" and the like. To be fair though, I think it was largely only humans that got this treatment.

I gotta go with the critics on this one though. There are some seriously stupid names in D&D. Granted, that's always been true, but, not really a defense when you're doing something new. Just because we had C.I.F.A.L. thirty years ago does not excuse doing it now.

 

[Incenjucar]

One of the advantages of using fantasy names instead of Latin (and Greek) names is that you don't have to attach it to a specific, actual dinosaur. This can be quite helpful because sometimes a writer has no bloody idea what they're writing about, and sometimes a new discovery is made.

Anyone who knows the difference between a brontosaurus and an apatasaurus knows what I'm talking about.

 

[malkav666]

I don't really care if they use made up names Latin species/genus derivatives. Some of the names are silly in either case. But I know why WOTC did it and I don't suspect they will stop.

I can copyright and brand:

Darkplague Flithrats


I cannot copyright or brand:

Mammalia: Rodentia Rattus rattus
(I think I did that right)

I cannot copyright or brand:

Large Rat

So in short I think it was done to give the game a copyright friendly identity. Its not necessarily a bad thing. But some of the names are rather silly. But this behavior is pretty common in corporate America (The idea of naming a common item something else to give it a brandable identity), and since WOTC is owned by an American corporation it doesn't surprise me.


love,

malkav